The State of Western Australia v Teakle - [2010] WASC 143

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- TEAKLE [2010] WASC 143

CORAM: MURRAY J

HEARD: 4 JUNE 2010

DELIVERED : 4 JUNE 2010

PUBLISHED : 16 JUNE 2010

FILE NO/S: INS 65 of 2010

BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Prosecution
AND
ANNETTE MAREE TEAKLE
Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Home invasion burglary, armed robberies in company, theft of motor vehicle - Undertaking to testify against co-offender

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

As from 15 March 2010, sentences passed -
(1) Aggravated burglary - 2 years imprisonment;
(2) 2 x armed robbery in company - 4 years imprisonment each, concurrent;
(3) Steal motor vehicle - 18 months imprisonment concurrent;
with eligibility for parole.
Sentences include discount of 18 months imprisonment for offer to assist authorities

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Prosecution : Ms J F Boots
Accused: Mr R J Lawson

Solicitors:

Prosecution : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Accused: R J Lawson

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

MURRAY J: Ms Teakle, as you have heard, I have had the opportunity to read the papers and I have listened carefully to the submissions that have been made by counsel, so I think it is in everybody's interests, including your own, that I deal with the matter now and finalise it.
The problem I have, I must tell you, is that this is a series of offences of such gravity that I have a public duty to mark, by the nature of the punishment that is imposed, the court's understanding of the severity of the crimes. There has been much debate about this of late, but the law works on the basis that the severity of the punishment becomes known in the community, and the seriousness of the offence becomes known and the hope is that, not only will that punishment deter the particular offender, the person in your position, from doing any such silly thing again, but it may have an effect on deterring others from committing that offence.
Now, there are the four offences of which you have been convicted. They are a group of offences, of course. I want to mention the facts in a little more detail. The burglary offence, you understand, is said to have been committed by you because you were in the place of Mr McManaway, not that you broke into it. I noticed that a different account was given as to what your co‑offender did. But nonetheless, with what followed, and with the fact that you were armed with a screwdriver as a weapon, matters of that kind, the offence attracts a maximum punishment of 20 years imprisonment.
So you can see how severely the law regards these matters. Of course, it will not be any use to you, I know, to hear that the reason, the overwhelming reason, why that is so is because it is these people's home and it is such a gross invasion of the personal safety of people in the community that their home is burst into by people in the situation that you and Mills created.
The victim impact statements: I do not know whether you read them or had them shown to you. You have? Yes. So you can see from those statements what sort of effect it has on people, and the courts recognise that, and that is one of the reasons why we are so concerned to see that what is done to offenders helps to prevent this sort of harm. It can have psychological effects and so forth.
It may be, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that when you came to the house it was a surprise to you that Mills whipped out a weapon and kicked in the door and burst in that way. I am prepared to accept that. But nonetheless, you did not immediately say, 'What the hell do you think you're doing? You've got to stop this. This is ridiculous.' You went on with it, and you went on with it in a way which showed that you were pursuing the enterprise.
You had the screwdriver as a threatening weapon, while Mills rampaged around the house threatening people with a gun, including the seven‑year‑old child, and you did not stop even when you found that the younger Ms McManaway had her seven‑year‑old daughter in the house, obviously, I would think, traumatised at that time, and that is the situation still.
So all of that is aggravating the seriousness of the offences that were committed very considerably, and it is not so much the value of the property, but I am astonished to hear that the vehicle which was taken has presumably, in some way, been disposed of or dealt with by Mills, and has not apparently been recovered. So not only was there the substantial fear of the violence that was going on and what that generates for these people, but they have lost property to a considerable value.
The point about that I think is that on the facts as they have been given to me, although one of you had a vehicle in which the two of you came, this other vehicle must have been taken for the purpose of providing a second getaway vehicle. It has been disposed of, I presume, and it has not just been abandoned when you made the getaway.
So this is a series of offences which have these ramifications, and so you can see the reason why a maximum term of life imprisonment for the worst cases of the kind can be imposed in relation to the armed robberies in company. Even the theft of the motor vehicle as such carries a penalty of 7 years imprisonment by way of maximum. So the direction the politicians are giving the court on behalf of the community is a very serious direction as to how seriously I should regard these matters, and I would certainly regard them seriously in any event.
I will not dwell on the victim impact statements. I have mentioned the contents and place on the record the fact that what those people say about the effect of what occurred upon them is understood by the court, and the court does not overlook it and would give to those matters the weight that may be given.
But I turn to the matters that are personal to you now and I am sensible of the tragic and difficult circumstances in which you have been for many years now, I think no doubt as a result of drug addiction in particular, and the incapacity that you have had to finally shed this dependency. The way in which it blights your life is self evident.
Nonetheless, you are now a woman of 33, and you have not a bad criminal history. Its worst feature, of course, is the rather different robbery, I agree, for which you were dealt with in the District Court in January 2000, but there was a serious lesson to be learned from what was done there. By imposing the intensive supervision order, all sorts of warnings would have come from the bench as to the need to make that come right. You did so, but of course it does not stop at that point. You have got to keep up with it, and I am surprised to find that you have got into this situation 10 years after that event.
Now, I can understand what has happened. The personal tragedy in your life which threw the thing off the rails again, I understand, but that sort of thing happens to people and not everybody goes out and resumes the consumption of illicit drugs and starts to invade people's homes and commit robberies. So it is a reason which provides limited mitigation, I have to tell you, in relation to the punishment which must be imposed.
I have considered both the pre‑sentence report and the psychological report. The latter document particularly shows that there is much serious work to be done by you if this incident is not to mark your descent into repeated serious crime, until you just get too old to do it. So there can be no mistake now; it has got to be turned around. You have got to use this experience to pursue your rehabilitation.
What the psychologist says, just to pick out two very brief observations, is that psychologically at present there is an array of mental health issues with elevations and anxiety, depression and self‑defeating traits. You have got to deal with those and get help to turn your thought processes into a more positive vein. I am sure you have tried in the past but it has now become critical.
The psychologist goes on to say that the central target of course is drug rehabilitation. He refers to earlier successful treatment, but says that your release from custody, be it in the near or distant future, must be coordinated carefully with close monitoring, focused on watching for relapse and engagement in significant drug focused counselling.
I mention that particularly because it seems to me that I need to take some issue with that observation. It can not be left until you come to the point where you are seeking release on parole. It has got to be addressed beforehand. There are programs available. They actually work, but they only work if the people who are engaged in them are open and determined to take advantage of them and understand the dangers in their psychological make up which produce this sort of misguided decision making which produces this sort of criminal behaviour.
So he summarises it in this way, which shows I think what I am trying to impress upon you, of the difficulty that you confront and how determined you are going to have to be. This is his last substantive paragraph, and it says:
Collating these findings, at present the picture is of a woman in her mid-30s who has a marked propensity to return to serious drug abuse when encountering difficulty and who has been desensitised to antisocial behaviour to fund such use. She requires strong support to help her attain abstinence but also to develop mainstream living skills and the skills necessary to cope with the emotional challenges that come particularly as she tries to rebuild a life that has been marked by poor decisions and a destructive lifestyle.
I have to say that, reading the papers, he is right on the money. I have not seen reports from Mr Cameron before, but he has got it right this time. The programs, as I say, are available. They can be got into. It is not always easy. They are not always available at the time that they ought to be, so a lot of it will depend upon what you are able to do and how determined you are to keep pushing to make sure you get in and get on with it.
All right, enough of that. I accept that you are now particularly remorseful for your involvement in this matter and there is mitigation available to you. One of the most important pieces of mitigation is the offer that you make, and which you have supported by making the statement which I have read, to, if the need arises, provide evidence against this person Mills, who is now just starting to go through the processes of this court.
The court appreciates that that takes some courage and it is a difficult thing to give an undertaking like that, and therefore there is a substantial credit to be provided to you. I will quantify that credit because it comes with a sting in the tail. If you should wimp on it, if it does not work and you renege on the undertaking, then you will be brought back to the court and resentenced and it is quite likely that the resentencing will involve the imposition of the greater penalty which otherwise would have been applied.
There is mitigation available to you, as I say, in the remorse which you have expressed, and I take your early pleas to be a reflection of that and give them substantial credit for that reason. Those things having been said, that is probably enough to make clear my thinking. It is a balancing process for me to try to satisfy the demands of the community that a sentence be imposed which is proportionate to the severity of the crimes, but also to mitigate punishment to the extent that I am able to do so.
These offences were all committed as part of the one incident and it is proper then that all of the sentences be imposed to run concurrently, and so these are the sentences that I impose. For the first offence, the aggravated burglary, I impose a sentence of 2 years imprisonment, for the two offences of armed robbery in company, I impose sentences of 4 years imprisonment and for the offence of stealing the motor vehicle I impose a sentence of 18 months imprisonment.
As I say, they will all run concurrently and they will be backdated to 15 March this year and I impose them with parole eligibility. That means that for the aggregate term of four years you will have to now serve from 15 March this year a period of 2 years before you will become eligible for parole. You have got much work to do in that period of time, as I have mentioned to you, and I recommend that you undertake and be provided with treatment for both your psychological problems generally and drug addiction.
So far as the offer to assist the authorities is concerned, I value that at a sentence discount of 18 months imprisonment; so there it is. It is probably an inappropriate thing to say, but I do wish you all the best of luck to really turn this around. You may stand down now, thank you.